LS ROLLER ROCKER TEST-DO THEY WORK?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ธ.ค. 2024
- FULL RESULTS. LS ROLLER ROCKER TEST. WHAT IS A ROLLER ROCKER? HOW DO THEY WORK? IS THE POWER WORTH THE PRICE? DO YOU NEED MORE SPRING RATE? CHECK OUT THIS TEST ON A 4.8L WHERE WE COMPARE THE STOCK LS ROCKERS TO A SET OF COMP 1.72:1 ROLLER ROCKERS. SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VALVE SPRING.
Richard you're the hardest working guy in the auto performance industry! You're a machine!
I stand by that too!
Hes off his rocker, and I glad.
Richard you really need to get a good editor, and a lavalier Bluetooth mic so you don't have to yell at the camera and sound like Billy Mayes
Big facts
Richard, you are one of the best sources for information on engines on TH-cam period!! This channel is like a non-commercialized version of Engine Masters! Thank you for doing what you are doing!!!! I am writing a bunch of this info down. I have a 4.8 in my Silverado, I am going to build another 4.8 and my 16 year old and I are going to start going to the local drag strip strictly off of the information I have learned here! Thank you!!!
I would love to see 1.7 vs 1.8 rocker comparison on LS
More lift so more power, just multiply the cam lift by the ratio and you'll get your lift.
@@bennyboyy7the power of more lift will only come if the heads can flow enough.
Aftermarket and ported LS heads usually DO FLOW more after .500" and .600" lift.@@dylanspencer3662
I thought that was the video was about. somehow the 1.8 dropped off the back. unsure.
These dyno videos are one of my favorite things on TH-cam. Thanks for doing what you do.
philofab straight knowledge
Holly cow. Someone just gave me a set of LS roller rockers lol. Your super right on time lol
I want to see the same test with a cam upgrade
Richard you missed talking about one of the greatest benefits to a roller rocker, and that is the decreased wear on the valve tip and valve stems / guide through reducing side load. Especially important on high lift cams.
And this is EXACTLY why guys eat valve guides and valve stems with aggressive cams. No one seems to understand this especially with the LS7 stuff.
good point
@richardholdener1727 what size lift spring did you use to compensate for the weight
What would u recommend for a boosted engine?
I work at the post office just starting out, it's pretty rough your first while till you make regular. When I watch these videos I think about the LS motor I'm going to build with all this overtime and it makes it feel more worth it plus I get to learn about them while I'm delivering the mail. Thanks dude.
I’ve heard that “full” roller rockers solve another issue, valve guide wear. The RPM guys are constantly fixing LS7s with head problems particularly associated with that design. Also, Trick Flow recommends roller rockers for their heads, I believe. Still, the addition of 1.72 rockers to the stock 4.8 adding 13hp was a surprise to me. Another super video, thanks!
I have high lift slow ramp(ish) EPS lobes on my custom Geoff Skinner cam in my 6.2 ls3. Love the lobes. Very quiet and great with my vvt very easy on my valvetrain.
Another video they showed stock rocker arm ratios are usually short and not consistent. So a Chevy 1.5 rocker arm might be 1.35 ratio and a 1.6 might be 1.45 or 1.50, so going to a true 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.8 ratio rocker arm gives you the increase over the factory ratio and also the increase in the ratio. So the 1.72 over the stock arms giving 13hp is not too suprising. That stock arm i believe ratio was 1.7 but the actual ratio may have been 1.55 or 1.60 due to quality control. So the true 1.72 gives a gain of almost .15 or .1 increase in rocker ratio.
I would love to see a max effort cam shootout on stock or semi modified ls1/6.0. Would love to see how old cams like T-REX, Ms3/4,G5x. Compare to newer grinds like summit stage 4, or even Tick, Btr and Comp max effort cams. Also loving the high quality technical content.
the data you give us is a gift to man kind,thank you for doing what we cant and showing us the way,iv learned more from you then i have anyone else/
please keep making these kinds of videos, you are doing the car community a great service!!!!
I had valve float with stock cam, stock springs on my LS2 with the Comp 1.8 rockers at 6000-6200rpms. Replace your springs at the same time guys save yourself the trouble later.
correct, when you do a cam swap, do a spring swap!!!
@@TaylorParks87 apparently, even when only doing a rocker swap.
@@Turbo_Todd ESPECIALLY when doing a rocker swap.
@@TaylorParks87 Yes, IF you alter timing events beyond the capacity of the springs, which is mainly when you're swapping out a stock cam with stock springs. Not needed if they have already been replaced and can handle a bit more cam.
@@Turbo_Todd putting a rocker with more mass, the spring cant support
Good test. I ran roller rockers for years on a bolt on ls6. Every little bit counts.
I learned something new, good way to spend 12:11 of my day. Thanks to the OP!
Not the first engine I put roller rockers on , but the first stock engine was a 97 z28 LT1. I installed crane 1.6 gold self aligning rocker. The difference was noticable from 4 to 5500 rpm. The problem, factory rev limit was 5500. Durp
Back then those were $300. I think they were worth it because horse power that doesn't consume more fuel is today's priority.
While I appreciate and like that you don't make recommendations, you could do a $/hp statement. That way guys like me know where to get the most bang for the buck. Thanks for all your videos! You are my favorite LS channel!
Once again a great video. There are upgraded trunion kits to replace the actual needle bearings which have been problematic with increased HP, spring pressure load, and higher RPMs. That's the route I would take and if that proves insufficient go all the way to rocker arms linked by a through bar to reduce flexing of the mount.
On an sbc, I've seen magazine articles say 1.6 roller rockers are worth 24hp over stock stamped steel 1.5s. I like running them in an sbc regardless, I like the lower friction. Ls, I've heard the stockers are good. For 13hp, I'd rather upgrade the springs and run rollers.
My oil temp dropped 15° on sbc... less friction
Engine masters did a baunch of different rockers on sbc.
Gains are solely based on if the wngine needs the added valve events the bigger ratio offers. However, that is when you compare 2 different rockers of the same quality. Factory stamped steel 1.5 rockers, in all actuality, measure anywhere fro. 1.25 to 1.4. So even swapping to a newer rocker at same 1.5 ratio, would net a big difference. Magazine tests like that can be misleading. Always compare apples to other apples...
I keep getting told by all my ls buddies the roller rockers are a waste of time and money and just do a trunnion upgrade. But if a rocker upgrade is only 2-300 more, why wouldn’t I go that route, gain the little power, gain the added strength?
no on roller rockers
@@richardholdener1727 no what?
I would say one of the best things of a roller tip under very high lift an high rpm it can help minimize valve guide wear.
yes
I thank you for running this test. I'm currently building a 355 and the cam I have is Crane Energizer, .480/.480. I want to add a set of 1.6 roller rockers to get a little more cam. The heads are a L98 2.02/1.6 valves ported to the max. Springs will handle up to a .575 lift. 👍👍 and thanks again.
I had this very weird thing happen to me. When I decided to upgrade to trunnions, I noticed the wear pattern on one of the rockers was to the side instead of straight in the middle of the tip. I've had the engine since new and I have never had it apart before so it wasn't from some incorrect torquing down or reinstallation or whatever. Straight from the factory. I wonder if anyone else saw this. Anyways, while I wasn't thrilled about paying so much for roller rocker tips, the cool thing is that they came on a shaft that mounts two of them together. Stock ls rockers are individually. I'm guessing this will eliminate any tendency of rocker arms wanting to twist to the side or so. A little side benefit to the roller rocker tips I bought I guess.
Richard look into the GSR (Godbold Stiffness Rating) with the stock pushrods vs comp .080 Vs X-DA and a .600+ camshaft. I tested it this weekend but dont have back to back data. As always thanks for all you do one of my favorite TH-cam channels!
I wanna see this exact test ran, but with an aggressive cam in the motor and actually wringing it out.
You skipped over some of the biggest reasons for going to roller rockers- the factory rocker nose geometry starts to "scrub" above about .586" lift, causing a big increase in friction and sideloading the valve stem, both coating power AND killing valve guides over time.
Something like an MS4 from TSP would be a great example in a little 4.8, and would really illustrate an application where they fit nicely.
I'd like to see the test with factory rockers, followed by a set of rollers bolted on "out of the box", and then again after taking the time setting proper wipe pattern.
Something that would be GREAT to see after the last test mentioned above would be pushrods, and testing the extent to which pushrod deflection can hurt output. Test first with the ubiquitous 5/16", .080" wall pushrods that everyone uses, then test a set of Trend double-tapers... The MS4 has nice aggressive lobes and was designed around being a "high-effort" cam capable of taking advantage of stock cathedral heads; that grind coupled with the RPM that combo would want should make for a very interesting test!
The only ancillary thing you might have to change would be to throw in a set of adequate lifters to eliminate that variable during testing, assuming they weren't already replaced while the heads were off. A set of CTSVR's, drop-in Morel or Johnson, or even genuine Delphi's or Eaton "LS7/LSA/LS-whatever people call 'em now" are cheap and up to the task, ran at .090-.110" preload.
Please please pretty PWEEEAAAASE? I got a bone to pick regarding the subject.
You could even make a series out of it- finding and extracting NA power out of a "junkyard" LS, one step at a time, including "free" stuff, tips and tricks, ect... You could also do stuff like:
-test if an ATI dampener actually picks up
-electric water pump (could even test if there's a difference between one with an idler pulley vs without)
-crank scraper and windage tray
-better factory intake/throttlebody
-throttle body spacer- snake oil or free power?
-removing casting flash from ports
-gasket-matching intake and exhaust
-Polishing the combustion chamber up using mag polish and a little wheel detail buffer- "old wives tale", or is there something to it?
-Indexing spark plugs?
-porting and radiusing oil pump housing/lapping side faces of gerotors, and "centering" during install- does less suction and discharge head and less friction make a difference?
-comverting "PCV" over to exhaust venturies- does a lil' bit of vacuum in the bang box do anything noticeable?
-Phenolic intske gaskets: Do they really do anything for IAT's, especially with a plastic intake?
-all the other small things we've heard about over the years
My wife agrees - The tip is the important part
Well I was dismantling my stock LS6 rockers and found the tip wear was pushing the valves crooked. So for the service to true these and a trunnions upgrade, I mind as well get new rockers. Doing my winter rebuild heads cam and exhaust. 😎😎😎
Perfectly and thoroughly explained! Thanks!!
I felt a big improvement on my bbc with comps 1.8 ratio stainless steel and 911-16 springs.
Thank you Richard again! Lots of info to learn even from modifications I didn't think of. When are we going to see your car and what all you have done to it on a video?
My 02 Silverado is stock
@@richardholdener1727 gonna pretend you never said that. :0 ;)
A very thorough and honest test.
Thanks very much for this one Richard!!
That was a great explanation of rocker arms I think I’ve owned every early variety of roller rocker
Toyota actually went away form a roller tip in their Nascar motors as they determined the reduction in weight and complecity of a slider vs roller asembly was better for thier application.
5-600 miles life.
Power is the 9nly consideration.
@osp80 about 1-2 mm across the tip of the valve.
Yes. Geometry say it has to.
@@manitoublack that is great information! But yeah their heads get rebuilt ever race. No roller tip on high lift cams puts more pressure on the valve guides and will possibly wear out valve guides sooner per every head manufacture.
I have a 5.3 with 315k on it. It was tapping. I tore it down to the block crank and pistons. Added a new high volume oil pump. Shimmed and ported it. I have 80lb cold 60lb hot. I installed a new cam new lifters and lifter cups new push rods new rockets and timing chain added studs in the heads. I started it and I have tapping still I replace knock sensors new spark plugs and wires and ideas
Tap typically top end valvetrain/or wristpin a knock isually bottom end if you loose oil press with heat typically good indication of rod bearings/bearing clearance.
On 1st gen SBC a rocker upgrade is a must, I've seen too many broken stock rockers resulting from little more than a set of heads that received a valve job and had better springs installed. Not to forget the inconsistent pivot ratios of the stock pieces.
Thanks for the Great info as always... Didn't know about the lost of cam lift in between.... Great info
A roller rocker is a roller pivot and roller tip.
Having used rollers for near 50 years. The main reason is a roller tip that gives true duration and lift. And uses less power to do so. And you can use a LOT less oil up top.
I find 20 -30 thou more lift with standard ratio.
More rocker ratio however loads up lifters and push rods exponentially. As well as rocker studs and or bosses.
You gotta consider the deflection on top of the friction of the rockers. Just having friction or just deflection wouldn't be too bad but together they create a lot more resistance.
Dam dude, slow down! You are rocking the videos out. I’m a Pontiac guy (yes I saw it) but I thoroughly enjoy every video. Such a wealth of knowledge and experience and expertise.
Waiting for the 93 Pump Gas Big Bang.
Keep them coming.
there will never be a pump gas Big Bang-that's just detonation
For my money, I would rather spend $400 on a cam and springs (since springs will likely be needed with rockers anyway), and pick up 50-70 HP than spend the same money on rockers and pick up 10. Also, you have a TON of laps on that poor little 4.8 by now, that's been a great test mule. Thanks as always Richard.
Cam install is not comparable in time and money. 1.8's and valvesprings are easy to install and still cheaper. $340 for the rockers and $200ish for springs. Nowhere the same in power but it's a decent increase and if you do cam it, your springs are done. Have you ever done a cam install? If you have you know it requires at least 4x the labor Add in the cost of a dyno tune now.
atf0013
$340 for rockers and $200 for springs that give minimal gains without a tune and about 10hp with a tune (like what Holdener did here as he optimizes the tune with every setup he tests)
VS
$260 Summit brand Sum-8718 cam (similar specs to a Stage 1 truck cam from BTR or TSP) that doesn’t need springs and adds about 50hp to a 5.3L and 35-45hp to a 6L (as demonstrated in his test with stage 1, 2, & 3 truck cams).
Seems to me that a mild cam that reuses springs is about half the cost and about 3-5 times the power gains. Plus, spring changes can take just as long (and are arguably more difficult than) as swapping a LS cam when it’s in the vehicle... not to mention a spring change allows much larger cams that can gain 75+hp or more depending on setup; especially on a 6L.
And really, what’s a few hours of work to increase your power drastically.
What if you already have everything done except aftermarket rockers...are they worth it now?
@@Forcefed2002 probably not for 10 HP, not to me at least. At least not on a LS. On a BBC or SBC they would've been one of first purchases along with the camshaft upgrade.
ChuckO Are you including the actual costs in parts that go with a cam swap, like gaskets, oil pump, timing chain? Gonna reuse all that stuff? Dyno tunes cost around $500 for a cammed car too. And a cam swap requires a lot more than just springs and rockers. 1.72 Rockers alone are probably not worth it for the money to most as a stand alone mod, but if you want to run the stock cam, 1.8's pick up 15hp on average to the wheels, and this should be a easy final bolt on addition after LT headers, and FAST 102 etc. I don't think that baby Summitracing cam is worth swapping. 500 lift? Anything under 600 lift in a LSx is pointless my man. Except maybe on a 4.8 or 5.3? Most heads like the 706, 799/243 flow best at .600. Stock LSx valvesprings are only good to .550-570 realistically and even less with higher miles, so rockers or a cam worth a damn means new valvesprings.
It's like you are psychic. I just bought a 6.0 to rebuild from the bottom up. That day you released 6.0 head tests haha
Best channel on TH-cam to date!! Not even kiddin
It's been my experience doing this RnD, the power came from the rocker due to changes in valve events. You will see this with a change of ratio, which is what it is intended to do, hence the change in rpm peaks by about 300rpm on both in this scenario. OEM rockers were nowhere near their advertised ratio. That stock LS 1.7 could actually measure 1.5 for example. The newer 1.72 rocker probably measure closer to 1.8, as they do make up for deflection when running. Huge difference in valve timing and overall lift, which will also explain the valve float upstairs, not having enough spring for the big lift change. It wasn't the weight difference.
Gains like this will only depend on if the engine wants or needs it, and are not typical. A bit more to it than just roller/not roller. More like a bigger measured ratio, regardless of advertised ratio, increase in duration @.050", faster ramp @.200" and through the lift range, and much more lift at the valve. When you see this comparison of same ratio, and see gains like this, just means the newer style rocker is giving actual valve timing events, where the older one is not. If you step to a 1.8 or 1.9, which is MORE than what the cam is designed for, you may not see any gains or possibly losses.
Not hatin', just wanted to add that.
Excellent point
It seems to me that your on the ball, but it kinda seems like your basically repeating everything that Richard is explaining, but you feel the added weight has no bearing whatsoever on spring choice. Are ya sure about that? I'm just a simpleton, extreme" but I wouldn't put Volkswagen shocks on my 1 ton. Ya know what I mean 🤔💡👍✌
I recently went Comp roller on my LQ9 except I did the 1.8. Last year I did the Crane 210/218 on a 114 LSA.
@Tom Wetz little after 2,500. At 1,500 cruise it's a little choppy and a deep drone that wasn't there before. Running TBSS intake, TB, injectors, dynatech headers. Was tuned.
Someday, it'd be cool to see gapless rings tested against traditional file-fit rings. Difficult test to perform, though.
Would be nice to see a test of an engine ran with something like a "stage 2" truck cam with lift specs using the stock 1.7 rocker ratio. Run it again now with 1.8 rocker ratio and see what kind of power gains it will have and what it might do to the cam timing and power curve in general. IE: will it extend the power, will it come on earlier, ect.
I've always wondered why not a high lobe lift vs higher rocker ratio. Example, 0.300 lobe lift with 1.8 rockers is 0.540 at the valve VS 0.337 lobe lift with 1.6 rockers is 0.540 at the valve.
There is a guy on here that builds drift cars that claims the factory rockers are a weak point for that application. Says the needle bearing caps are press fit and back out. Taylor Ray I believe is his channel.
@@hendo337 you're incorrect, when the rocker arm ratio is changed it doesn't affect the duration...
@@hendo337hey just a heads up rocker ratio does not affect duration. It will affect lift though.
@@hendo337 actually the cam lobe is the only part of the valvetrain that dictates duration. I do not have to read any articles, it is something I have known since I was 10 years old. Rockers arms can change LIFT though. Think about it..... it all starts with the cam lobe. Only when the cam lobe approaches and touches the lifter does it begin to push the pushrod which ONLY then pushes the rocker arm. You would have to change the cam lobe design to change duration. Duration is how LONG the valve is open (measured in crankshaft degrees though)
Cool I had 1.9 rockers on my l67 3.8 series ii and it was great.
Pretty interesting test results. I wouldn't have expected just a .02 increase in rocker ratio to add 13 hp. Maybe most of the increase is due to total overall dynamic valve lift because of less deflection. I did expect the power to fall off at high rpm due to insufficient spring load. Once the higher load springs were installed, there was a slight loss in torque across the rev range, which I attribute to higher friction from the spring load. I've always been a fan of the GM investment cast steel roller fulcrum rocker arm. They are light and stiff, and because of the simple radius tip, put less mass at the valve. Aluminum rocker arms are basically forced to have the roller valve tip because Aluminum cannot stand up to the high contact stresses if they were machined with radius tips. The roller tip inevitably adds mass at the valve, and most of them are just a simple pin riding on the ID of the roller. If a full needle roller tip is desired, that adds even more mass.
I wanna see a video testing 1.6 on intake n 1.7 on exhaust n see how it does maybe even do 1.7 on intake n 1.72 on exhaust n see if there’s any benefits
WHY WOULD YOU GO SMALLER THAN STOCK?
I also installed roller rockers on my small block to make my valve guides live a little longer. The roller tip prevents the valves from being pushed side to side .
No, it doesn't. That would be a geometry issue. Roller tips just have less wear on valve tip.
I'd like to see a test of a LS in complete stock form. Stock manifolds, fan, pulleys, etc. Then swap out headers, electric water pump, electric fan, maybe underdrive pulleys.....just the smaller things and see how much of a difference.
That would be a very good video! Always wonder about the benefits of a electric water pump and under drive pulley?
Check his videos, that was posted already.
please see the accessories video
Will do. Thanks kiddos
I just asked you about a comparison of roller rockers yesterday! What the hell man. How did you get this video done so quickly?
He’s already done all these tests he makes videos from. He’s got 20++ years of dynoing combos
I dont know how much youtube add revenue you bring in but I know its not enough for the amount of information you put out. THANK YOU!
Excellent video however I wish you had used full roller rockers with standard ratio so we could see the reduction in losses.
The crazy short pivot length on LS rockers, with the big lift, seems it would have a lot of sweep and thus guide/stem load and wear.
I would love to see a high rpm test with stock rockers, roller, and shaft (all the same ratio) I would think the higher rpm would emphasize the deflection.
Good explanation Richard,
Happy New Years✅
Lot involved once you start changing what engineers have in place✅
Excellent video, narration and conclusion. TYVM!
Great test! Your awesome! Wish you would have tested a 1.8 ratio rocker also...
Hey Richard holdener, have you ever tested a ls underdrive pulley?
That would be good video! I personally felt a improvement, through the seat of the pants dyno. SLP under drive pulley. But would like to see something on a graph!
back in the 5.0L Ford days
@@richardholdener1727 so does that means you have video on deck for us to watch In the near future?
OK.... I'm still building Fox cars... after all these years.
Affordable performance.
I currently have a under drive pulley and light weight alternator pulley on my engine. I felt a little more vibration from the engine but it seems more willing to rev. I don't have any dyno runs but know it's not a night and day difference. I saved it for the last possible NA mod i could do.
The biggest gains will come with a roller fulcrum. The biggest issue with ball pivot rockers is friction goes up proportionally to pushrod load. Big lift and bigger valve springs will burn a stock rockers and sometimes they will even push through. For stock cam guys, there isn't too much to be gained even with cheapo replacement rockers. A tiny bit of power way out at red line and maybe 2hp at 3000rpm. Nice test man, this is some good info.
I 'd love to see some spintron testing
Ive heard to just upgraded the stock rocker trunnion, mainly the press on caps on each side that hold the bearings in place cause at high rpms the vibrations work the caps off and now you have little roller bearings inside your engine.
Would love to see the difference between stock and roller with the same ratio, betting the difference would be negligible.
I'd bet gains would be 1/2
Another great informative video. I have been looking for this exact info ! Thanks
Richard is a "YT Content Stallion" everyday pumping fresh content new content. 👌🏻😏🤣👍🏻
Thank you for sharing your knowledge .
3 to 5 hp gang may or may not be cost-effective for the price but they damn do look cool.. but I’m here still waiting to see the 4.7 L dodge one day I will see if it!! He will or other people will start asking and he well do it!!!!
Would really like to see a solid lifter cam test vs hyd lifters . Engine masters did something similar......
Think he did a few days ago. I remember saying the constant lash adjustments weren't warranted. The power difference didn't seem to be enough to me.
I think the trunion upgrade is all that is needed for most minor upgrades on the LS, but a roller rocker is a much bigger upgrade on a traditional small-block. The trunion is the upgrade, the roller tip isn't worth much, IMHO. In this comparison, the rocker ratio change is probably the difference.
Richard, what are your thoughts on the LS shaft upgrade kits from Brian Tooley Racing? Again, probably not necessary for most applications, but seems like a very nice upgrade for those getting more aggressive with the RPM.
SHAFT IS NOT REQUIRED UNLESS RPM
Roller-tip rockers are generally installed for longevity of the valvestem. Sometimes it increases power, but unless the ratio changes the rocker arm shouldn't change the power out. If the power changes and the rocker ratio remained the same then there is friction/deflection in the system.
Yes your absolutely right. I have 1.8 full rockers on my ls1 and I would say it’s not seat of the pants increase in power but there is some. I like the smoother throttle response.
We’ve seen less lateral stress on the valves and steams with roller rockers. The factory rockers work great but seem to punish steam seals and guides more than rollers do. (Just my 2 cents).
YES AT HIGH LIFTS
Some roller rockers are so heavy over the nose you run into valve float where before you didn't with the stock rocker. Edit: I shoulf have watched the video first lol. Richard you're the first person to honestly point this out. Most guys are on the sales side of things and will never mention the weight. Top marks! Have you done a Solid roller cam vs Hydraulic test with the LS? The hydraulic are pretty good these days so the test would have to be two very large cams with close valve events, one solid one Hydraulic etc. Done this before? I know someone with a 2500hp LS and he says the power isnt possible with a hydraulic roller.
From what I understand if you switch to Trick flow heads you have to use roller rockers?
great info roller only better with enough valve spring
All the big name parts suppliers in the LS world recommend stock rockers with upgraded trunions.
Reminds me of a build where the guy removed the super trick LS9 rockers and replaced them with heavy ugly roller rockers. Rocker weight is super important. I doubt friction is much of an issue. Perhaps mocking up a head on the bench and try to measure the friction by using a load cell.
I saw a video a long time ago where the guy measured the deflection difference between roller and stamped, especially with high spring pressures. If i remember right it was as much as 0.030 more lift.
Excellently explained. Thanks.
Richard, can you do this test with an engine that already has a big cam? I think that would tell the whole story about rocker ratios.
they are usually worth less
Thanks again buddy. Keep up the good work!
Would have liked to seen this done on an sbc where there is alot of gains to be had over the oem rockers. The LS has one of the best factory rockers already.
Richard when can you do a Beehive spring vs OEM spring change on a old type stock engine all other things equal, so see how much spring weight reduction will influence that engine rpm in the curve, I think this will add a lot to you already interesting videos.
Hi Richard. Can you please do a video on beehive valve springs versus normal valve springs. Please
A issue I find with older rockers that are cast is I've seen some badly cast factory rockers were there not the right ratio or off some other than that it's fairly cheap to replace
Video suggestion in a related subject:pushrod length and/or deflection
Some interesting information on LS vs 1.8 roller rockers... on a 550+ lift cam you'll see MORE ratio than 1.8 on a stock rocker at max lift because the length of the rocker gets "longer" as the solid tip extends through the range of motion. Deflection is significant on a stock rocker, but its still less than .05 on a standard "1218" or whatever 130# spring.
yes-the geometry doesn't provide a consistent 1.8 ratio through the lift range nor does it track that when running from deflection
The factory rocker is also a progressive ratio. It starts around a 1.5 and finishes at a 1.7
Richard, I always like your stuff. I gain knowledge everytime.. Now, please go to the other side on this issue. If you use the recommended spring, retainer and lock for a given cam, and then I "over spring it" what does the curve look like? I got to know.... please show us a engines response with recommendations springs, the upgrade springs... my theory, over spring rate makes up for underscoring rate everytime..
MORE SPRING IS BETTER, LESS IS BAD
Be Interesting to record oil temp on this same test with high spring pressures
I always assumed that with a higher lift cam and stronger valve springs losses from deflection would be greater with factory rockers so gains from the stronger aftermarket roller rocker might be a little more. Maybe this would be more of an issue with older style SBC and other stamped steel rockers. Any thoughts on that? Great job on the videos, I really enjoy them.
I think you are correct
I broke a couple stamped sbc rockers after changing to a sig erson stage 2 with spring upgrade. The things just cracked in two. Definitely recommend a roller with a cam/spring upgrade on those old motors.
not a lot of deflection on stock LS rockers, also this combo wanted more camshaft so it responded. If you give it more cam, might respond less to rocker ratio change
Love this dude
Super Nerdy Gearhead
Looks like he gets busted up from fighting, excellent....
I wonder how tall
Rich is...wonder if he’s in my weight class!
Sweet Engineering
Wow good stuff man! I’d love to see a video comparing different lifter preloads and how it effects power and stock vs short travel lifters.
I did a pushrod length video-same thing
Is the power loss below 4600 @ 8:55 showing work to overcome inertia of heavy rocker vs friction improvements or is the port happier with less lift at lower revs. the stiffer valve springs @ 9:48 would act like even more mass for the cam to work against but it made higher torque at same Lift/RPM so results seem to show opposite outcomes. Thanks for the amazing info as always.
video suggestion, have you done a test that shows results of switch to roller pivot / roller tip VS stock non roller in the same ratio. mass vs stability vs friction.
If my understanding here is correct, while the valve is "floating" the camshaft is still turning, and the valve stem might get smacked by the cam's lobes while it is trying to re-seat.
Hello Richard. Love your videos! Especially for us guys on a budget. I'm curious if you've ever done a 1.7 rocker vs 1.8 rocker on a stock 6.0l? Thanks! Andrew
not on a 6.0L
It'd be fun to see a comparison on reverse hung pistons . Too bad I'm so far away , I'd bring a refreshed high mile 5.0 over for you run .
Some companies make steel roller rocker like Crower Cam, which may be lighter and stronger than the popular aluminum roller rockers but more expensive.
I seem to recall stock LS heads max out their flow numbers around .600” lift. I wonder how much power increase roller rockers would yield with a cam that already has .600+” of lift. I’m guessing you’d see minor gains from a couple extra degrees of duration but not much from the added lift.
These vids are the best!